Something like that could make a nice off shore launch platform. It probably has plenty of extra fuel storage for non-cyrogenic fuels. It could save a tourist company a lot of aggravation when the subject of launch licenses arises. Well maybe a private aircraft carrier launching stuff into space is also likely to cause something of an uproar internationally.

Lol, either that or the Royal Navy could buy it, it's probably better than the 2 new ones they're building anyway!

There has been quite a bit about this carrier on the net in the last year or so. It WAS a Royal Navy carrier. Built 1942-45, decommissioned in 1960 and sold to the Brazilian navy, who decommissioned it in turn in 2001. See http://www.ships-for-sale.com/aircraft_carrier.htm for more details.

It was for sale on E-bay a while ago but its asking price was 7 million then so the price is dropping.

I've wanted one for years because a friend once said that one would make an excellent club. We thought we could outfit one and follow the fleets during the 1st gulf war and become the leave hotspot then.

I know it WAS a Royal Navy carrier. The fact that their new ones seem to be having problems even before the building has really started yet is precisely why I commented they perhaps they should buy this one back! It may be old but it's a hell of a lot cheaper than their new ones!

Does this mean that the UK is thinking about building a decent sized aircraft carrier again? Those Invincible class ships are cute but not much more useful than a typical US Amphibious Assualt vessel, well without something like the Harrier onboard anyway.

As far as problems building aircraft carriers it could be worse, from what I read the French had the Charles De Gaulle ready something like a year before thay had any planes with tail hooks on them. I think the Russian Kuznetsov carrier may not be fully operational and that was built nearly 20 years ago. Or the Russians Varyag carrier which was never fully completed before being sold to Chinese interests in order to be turned into an entertainment complex.

An interesting thing about the former HMS Vengeance (or Minas Gerais) to me is that it still has it's engines and props. It's my understanding that the US Navy doesn't actually own the engines or props to their aircraft carriers but they are leased. When one is decommissioned the engines and props are pulled out by the company that owns them. I've no idea what is done with them though. There's a few american carriers on the way out but I don't know if those are going to be up for sale or if they're in any shape to be useful for anything. There's also a couple in reserve and a couple slated for disposal if they haven't been cut up already. Get several of them and someone could have quite a floating launch complex floating around the equator.

TJ, a few bits about the new carriers... yes they will be a decent size this time (50,000 tons+) to allow Blair to bomb something foreign. They are however a bit of a dogs breakfast (again). The two companies who competed for the contract, Bae (British) and Thales (French) have been given a bit each to make it politically acceptable. The Thales design will be built in the British shipyards under Bae leadership (?!). They are also quite dependent on the JSF F-35 losing some weight so it does not smash through the deck when it lands vertically. This could be fun as the aircraft is designed by a US (lockheed-Martin) and British (Bae again) consortium in 3 variants with Rolls-Royce engines and a job share between the two countries with Holland trying to get some of the work....Oh dear God, it's Eurofighter all over again. See you in 20 years and £50,000,000,000 later. Long live the Sea Harrier!

TJ, a few bits about the new carriers... yes they will be a decent size this time (50,000 tons+) to allow Blair to bomb something foreign. They are however a bit of a dogs breakfast (again). The two companies who competed for the contract, Bae (British) and Thales (French) have been given a bit each to make it politically acceptable. The Thales design will be built in the British shipyards under Bae leadership (?!). They are also quite dependent on the JSF F-35 losing some weight so it does not smash through the deck when it lands vertically. This could be fun as the aircraft is designed by a US (lockheed-Martin) and British (Bae again) consortium in 3 variants with Rolls-Royce engines and a job share between the two countries with Holland trying to get some of the work....Oh dear God, it's Eurofighter all over again. See you in 20 years and £50,000,000,000 later. Long live the Sea Harrier!

And here I thought that the F-35 was supposed to be a light weight fighter. Lockheed needs to be haunted by Kelly Johnson.

You know with the passing of Reagan I've seen lots of comments on how he helped push the Russians into a spending war on military that helped collapse their economy. You'd think that the rest of the world would learn something from that regardless of whether or not Reagan actually had anything to do with the collapse.

You know with the passing of Reagan I've seen lots of comments on how he helped push the Russians into a spending war on military that helped collapse their economy. You'd think that the rest of the world would learn something from that regardless of whether or not Reagan actually had anything to do with the collapse.

The rest of the world should learn what, give up military spending? I know, so every other country should let America get on with building a huge army, wasting all its money on its military (as it is at the moment) and let Americas economy collapse!!! see any parallels anyone?

I don't think any country will stop funding its military, especially with America around!

A little harsh Nova. Thanks to the USA and its reckless military spending, Britain survived a very dangerous period of history. Remember those people were willing to take the chance of massive casualties in their own cities to keep us buying Sony Playstation 2's and not bothering to turn up to vote!

Perhaps it was a little harsh but that statement I quoted was just so arrogant, I had to say it because of of that.

Anyway luke, what are you talking about? America helping Britain survive a dangerous period of history? Yeah, TWO YEARS TOO LATE ON BOTH COUNTS!!! If America really was our best friend it would not take them having to be attacked before they came to help! We owe America nothing.

What's happening now has very little relation to that and I don't see why anyone from anywhere else in the world should take a comment like the one I drew attention to. I know it may be hard for some Americans to take but they ain't the only country in the world!

Btw, i'm not anti-American, far from it in fact. Comments such as that though simply don't impress me.

America helping Britain survive a dangerous period of history? Yeah, TWO YEARS TOO LATE ON BOTH COUNTS!!! If America really was our best friend it would not take them having to be attacked before they came to help! We owe America nothing.

Would America have had to pay any money to Europe if it declared war in 1939 as our ALLY in the first place!!! Instead, the US waited until IT got attacked, until IT was threatened. I thought true friends helped each other no matter what. Obviously there must be some huge difference between english and american meaning of the word.

Hell, we even supported the French again even though we have been at war with each other for most of recorded history. The ANZACS, Indians, and all other parts of the old empire all sent troops to fight even though they were not directly threatened. Why is it only America that seems to be so triumphalist about the whole episode?

Britain went to war because the Nazi's were invading our friends, that's what friends do. It's a shame the US doesn't feel the same way.

The Marshall Plan was simply a poor excuse for the US not being there in the first place when it really mattered.

America may not need our gratitude, SO STOP ASKING FOR IT!!! You obviously did not hear Mr Bush and his really insulting D-Day +60 speech.